And just for the record my title is tongue in cheek. I just thought it was kind of ironic that he was coming to the defense of one of my teams after helping to screw my other team.

I thought it was a TD by millimeters, but I agree with him that there was not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. I was more upset about the obvious false start on the 4th down the play before the Touchdown, then i was on the overturned call he's talking about here.

But all in all the officials shouldnt have mattered. If Chip didnt call a horrible, stubborn game the Ducks win. If DAT makes one block for Mariota instead of trying to race him to the endzone the Ducks win. If Barner could break a tackle, ANY tackle, the Ducks probably win. If the Ducks had a decent high school kicker, they win.

But, they lost and STanford earned the win. I'm now the worlds biggest USC and UCLA fans!

I was pretty stunned when they overturned it. This is one of those times where instant replay hurts more than it helps, his shoulder was in green for a millisecond before he was out of bounds and there would have been no way to tell with the naked eye. It just plain wasn't enough evidence to overturn, not even close.

That being said, this game shouldn't have been close, the Ducks let the Stanford D dictate what they would do. I was really disappointed with Mariotta, he looked like he was playing scared the whole game. His defense stepped up big time to keep the score close all game and he offense couldn't score one more touchdown, or even get enough yards for a field goal when it mattered most.

I was shocked they overturned it, but I think it was a TD. I was also shocked it wasn't ruled a TD on the field. Incredibly close play for an incredibly close game. Both kickers were awful (UO slightly moreso obviously, but Stanford's k is pretty reviled for multiple chokes and short-range misses). Stanford's fumbles were a killer, and nearly cost them that win in OT as well. Instant classic of a game, but IMO the refs got this one right, and if it had been called a TD on the field, I don't know if they overturn that either.

That said, my understanding is that he catches it with feet on the ground but bobbles. He controls it and his R shoulder touches in bounds while he has control. He goes out of bounds with control. Play over, TD. The argument against Calvin Johnson's catch was that he was still in bounds and 'lost it through the process of being on the ground' or whatever. But if this had been on the sideline, the guy controls it while diving to the ground, hits the ground with possession, then rolls out of bounds and while OOB loses it, that would still be a catch. ...Right?

jkitsune wrote:I was shocked they overturned it, but I think it was a TD. I was also shocked it wasn't ruled a TD on the field. Incredibly close play for an incredibly close game. Both kickers were awful (UO slightly moreso obviously, but Stanford's k is pretty reviled for multiple chokes and short-range misses). Stanford's fumbles were a killer, and nearly cost them that win in OT as well. Instant classic of a game, but IMO the refs got this one right, and if it had been called a TD on the field, I don't know if they overturn that either.

That said, my understanding is that he catches it with feet on the ground but bobbles. He controls it and his R shoulder touches in bounds while he has control. He goes out of bounds with control. Play over, TD. The argument against Calvin Johnson's catch was that he was still in bounds and 'lost it through the process of being on the ground' or whatever. But if this had been on the sideline, the guy controls it while diving to the ground, hits the ground with possession, then rolls out of bounds and while OOB loses it, that would still be a catch. ...Right?

I think what pereira is saying is that he still bobbled it even after he was definatly out of bounds, so control was never made. Really close call that could have gone either way.

Bang Bang play, he bobbled it while his shoulder was out ot bounds, he had "control" for a milisecond when he was inbounds and then bobbled it again before regaining control while in bounds. Definitely not a TD from my view. Close call though. Game shouldn't have come ot that though.

Oregon gets a big defensive game for once ironically holding a team down and still loses. That's quite surprising. I thought they'd lose in a shootout if they were to lose at all.

Notre Dame on the other hand.... the fact that they are #1 is pretty lame, but I guess you can't do anything else, but seriously Alabama is now in line to play them in a championship? Talk about a sham. Notre Dame couldn't beat Baylor, and I'm dead serious. They can't beat a team with a QB. They came one play from losing to BYU. BYU has a worse QB than me. I'm only half kidding here. A championship game between Notre Dame and Bama would make the BCS look awful in most people's eyes I think. Alabama jumping back up so quickly is a joke and a half. There should be a rule that you drop below the team that beat you or at least split the difference. They lose to #20 and drop to what #5 and are now back in line for a championship game a week later? Silly.

Does the Calvin Johnson rule exist in college? Because if it doesn't, it's a TD when his shoulder hits and nothing else matters. However if that rule does exist in college, then yeah, Stanford was gifted a TD. He clearly bobbled it after going out. That said, the play happened on 1st and goal, no?

For the record, I said it was a catch when I was watching the game live (and I was rooting for the Ducks), but it really has to do with the Calvin Johnson rule being universal or not. I was under the impression that the Calvin Johnson rule did not exist yet in college football. I hope it never does. It's a terrible rule.

ChrisB Bacon wrote:The PI call was far worse.

Yeah, that call was AWFUL. I was relieved to see it didn't impact the outcome, or at least it probably didn't.